netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] netlink: add mask validation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:31:13 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        andrew@...n.ch, dsahern@...il.com, pablo@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] netlink: add mask validation

On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 21:28 +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:

> > > +	if (value & ~(u64)pt->mask) {
> > > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, nla, "reserved bit set");
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > You had an export of the valid bits there in ethtool, using the cookie.
> > Just pointing out you lost it now. I'm not sure I like using the cookie,
> > that seems a bit strange, but we could easily define a different attr?
> 
> The idea behind the cookie was that if new userspace sends a request
> with multiple flags which may not be supported by an old kernel, getting
> only -EOPNOTSUPP (and badattr pointing to the flags) would not be very
> helpful as multiple iteration would be necessary to find out which flags
> are supported and which not.

Message crossing, I guess.

I completely agree. I just don't like using the (somewhat vague)
_cookie_ for that vs. adding a new explicit NLMSGERR_ATTR_SOMETHING :)

I would totally support doing that here in the general validation code,
but (again) don't really think NLMSGERR_ATTR_COOKIE is an appropriate
attribute for it.

johannes